Now I'm not saying everyone does this, a good scientist will try hard not to, and we can see signs of that in the multiple Lugano checks. But here we know that Levi - who of these profs is the one responsible for the emissivity mistake that provides the inflated COP > 1, has been so not careful. When he was asked to check the error he still claimed there was none. And, as TC and others have shown, that one error is not detected by any of the Lugano checks, because of the various poor methodologies that prevented the dummy test from acting as a control, or even as a test of the emissivity method. This is fact, and I'll lead you through the technical details if you like. If you think otherwise i'd request that you back up your comments with technical detail.

So, prof from a prestigious European university or no, whether it fits your world-view or no, Levi in this specific matter suffers this specific (human) problem. He is too wedded to his own ideas and therefore does not critique them or engage with critiques from others. It is bad science.

As usual, an insult to Levi every day keeps the Scientist away.

You and others die for the TC "report" and pretend that only you are such an Elite of scientist to have understood that all others in the world, not only Levi, but all people that have replicated Lugano have done errors.

If you are such an Elite why aren't you all working at MIT, Stanford, Cambridge or some other great University ?

I know that Bologna and Uppsala are not sufficiently prestigious for people like you.

Or why not a private company, Alphabet or SpaceX may be ok for you ?

This seems somehow a Madness, or most probably you are following an agenda.

I disagree. McKubre, I and others were careful in our evaluations. We did not dismiss them. I have said repeatedly that the second set of experiments were not bad, and no major error has been found in them as far as I know. However, we raised many questions about Lugano. Legitimate, important, scientific questions, such as "what color was the reactor incandescence?" They never answered these questions. They darn well should have. An academic scientist has an obligation to answer such questions from people like McKubre, and even from me.

I didn't mean by people inside the field Jed, They will discuss and take it on its merits. It's elsewhere that the problem lies, as you know.

Wrong Dennis. You are thinking of Dennis "Craven's" balls. You are forgiven...yet again BTW, because senility is a disease.

Thx Ahlfor. Good to see IH kicking in, although most of this transpired before the trial that was not a trial. Off hand, I do not remember this "Burgess", although his looks like a provisional from 2013 that IH bought into...like Miley's IP they bought into.

Interesting the Dennis (no balls ) Letts patent. Joe Murray of IH fame...or "infamy" for the 2 remaining Rossi supporters, is on there. Dewey, can we now say that Murray is an LENR believer?

I didn't mean by people inside the field Jed, They will discuss and take it on its merits. It's elsewhere that the problem lies, as you know.

The Lugano authors did not answer McKubre, me, or anyone else, inside the field or outside it. In my opinion, this violates the ethics of academic science. It is also a dumb thing to do. It makes them look bad. We have to assume the answers would all be bad news; i.e., the color what orange, as shown in the photos.

You have tested it ? Alone ? and using the same logic of this forum who was over viewing you ?

How have you verified that Alumina you used was pure ? Impure Alumina, like what is found in most alumina cements have a very different emissivity from the pure one.

Alumina cements have a very high emissivity while pure alumina does not go above 0.7 (0.64) in any case.

Remember, the Lugano group have measured the emissivity of the alumina pipes and found that this was perfectly compatible with the values found in tables.

You say you have heated up to glowing .......

How ? have you used Kanthal wires ? From where you were seeing the glowing ? pure Alumina becomes transparent at high temperature so the glowing should be from the wires if you have seen the glowing from your tube then this would suggest that yours was not pure alumina.

You say that you got a "COP around 3 to 4"

Which number please ? 3 or 4 ? and how you have used math ?

Remember that Energy is a very weak function of emissivity because emissivity appears in the conversion of bolometers signal (proportional to energy) to temperature and back to conversion from temperature to energy.

So what you refer is unrealistic and surely is due to a math error, for example the one from TC that was using two different emissivity factors one for the camera and one for the Stefan Boltzmann law.

You say that you have stick a thermoucople on the tube. How ?

Contact measure of temperature on Alumina is not trivial because Alumina is a thermal insulator and also normal thermocouples would not stand high temperature so you need quite a refined setup to do that not something that everyone can do.

You say that you adjusted the emissivity on your IR gun, this means that somehow you measured it and if you obtained a value higher then 0.7 then your material was not alumina. Note that at high emissivity the error done by TC is less important so you will ( oh what a miracle !) find a COP just near 1.

So mr Paradigmoia, for me (and also for any one with some laboratory experience) you are just mythomaniac who want to appears in the net as the hero that is the one and the only capable to make a measure. Not the Lugano team or prof. Parchkomov or any other equals you.

Display More

Nice try. I suggest everyone that can to test it. Don't take my word alone. But I have made many tests.

A pure alumina tile (easily purchased) placed on a hot plate is a fine test. Use the table from the Lugano report, reiterate away, and wonder why the tile is so much hotter than the hot plate by IR, when using the Lugano Total - Spectral Conflation Protocol...

Visible light transparency IS NOT equivalent to IR transparency. It only takes about 1.5 mm of alumina ceramic to be totally opaque to IR transmission, depending on pore size and grain size characteristics.

3 to 4 "COP" depends primarily on the temperature of the ceramic. The hotter, the higher the IR baloney "COP" will be.

My "like" of Aescoli's post above is obviously for Ascoli and not for Alan's remarks or actions. BTW, we will know for sure in a few years the exact sort of scientist Levi (and the Swedish scientists who tested Rossi's kludges) is.

Ahi - you're confusing and stretching matters again. We've invested in several companies who have helped us along the way and have many patents moving thru the system. Some may even turn out to be useful. The patented Burgess invention that you reference is assigned to an unrelated party. Keep searching though and hope that the R'ster doesn't stumble back into the crosshairs.

The Lugano authors did not answer McKubre, me, or anyone else, inside the field or outside it. In my opinion, this violates the ethics of academic science. It is also a dumb thing to do. It makes them look bad. We have to assume the answers would all be bad news; i.e., the color what orange, as shown in the photos.

Hi Jed. My interaction with the now banned (for 2 weeks) 'Ascoli' had nothing to do with a debate on scientific ethics. The deleted post contained what could be considered - in almost any jurisdiction outside the USA - to be a criminal libel, repeated twice in the thin disguise of a question. If you had been the target of it- or indeed MY or Kirk I would have taken precisely the same action. Since Ascoli hides behind a screen-name libelling somebody on the web takes zero courage on the part of the poster, but does carry risks for other parties involved in publishing this forum.

US9381588 (B2) MULTI-METAL PARTICLE GENERATOR AND METHOD is OBVIOUSLY unrelated - it handles sterilization methods for catheters via nanopowders - but inventors appear skilled in the art and live in NC. Good folks to work with if you need metal powders insights.

Images

You and others die for the TC "report" and pretend that only you are such an Elite of scientist to have understood that all others in the world, not only Levi, but all people that have replicated Lugano have done errors.

If you are such an Elite why aren't you all working at MIT, Stanford, Cambridge or some other great University ?

I know that Bologna and Uppsala are not sufficiently prestigious for people like you.

Or why not a private company, Alphabet or SpaceX may be ok for you ?

This seems somehow a Madness, or most probably you are following an agenda.

Display More

ele
I can appreciate that you have strong feelings in this matter. Still, where I work is not relevant to the facts here, nor am I commenting on Levi's qualifications - it was you who raised them. I offered to justify all the technical detail in my comments, including a full explanation of any aspects of TC's paper you disagree with, as well as pointing out the many others who corroborated this reading of the Lugano data. My offer to explain any detail remains open.

I wonder if you understand that replying to factual and substantive, directly relevant comment, with personal remarks, shows only the weakness of your argument?